By
The September 8, 2026 ruling keeps restrictions on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) process for sharing tax information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It does not permanently prohibit every lawful disclosure, erase information already transferred or protect someone from removal on other grounds. The D.C. Circuit affirmed a preliminary order requiring compliance with federal taxpayer-confidentiality law and notice to the court before further disclosures under the provision at issue. For immigrant taxpayers, the practical questions are which information ICE obtained, how it obtained it, and what the law and applicable orders permit ICE to do with it. See the September 8 opinion in Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS.
The concern is no longer hypothetical. The opinion describes ICE’s June 27, 2025 request for last-known addresses for 1.28 million individuals and the IRS’s disclosure of 47,289 records under the challenged procedure. Requests and disclosures are different measures: the disclosed-record count does not establish a number of unique people or complete tax returns, and neither total identifies whether your information was included.
If you have a removal order, have been contacted by ICE, or are concerned about inconsistencies between tax and immigration records, book a confidential consultation with Herman Legal Group or call 216-696-6170. An individual review can separate a taxpayer-privacy issue from an underlying immigration problem that still requires attention.
What the September ruling actually decided
On September 8, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed preliminary relief in Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS, No. 26-5006. The case challenged the procedure the IRS developed to respond to ICE’s requests, rather than merely the wording of the agencies’ agreement.
The opinion’s discussion of that procedure identifies two concrete problems. First, the process allowed disclosures even when ICE had not supplied a sufficient taxpayer address. Second, it failed to ensure that the recipients were agency employees personally and directly involved in the relevant criminal investigation or proceeding. An address field containing inadequate information, or a contact field containing some text, did not establish compliance with the statute.
The distinction matters because these safeguards limit how a government agency can obtain confidential information about a particular person. Treating them as mere form fields would allow the mechanics of a database search to replace the legal conditions Congress imposed.
The underlying November 21, 2025 district-court order stays the challenged policy pending further review and requires strict compliance with Section 6103(i)(2). It also requires sealed notice to the court within 48 hours after receipt of a covered future Department of Homeland Security (DHS) request and at least 72 hours before a proposed disclosure the IRS considers lawful. Those are obligations imposed on the government, not deadlines for taxpayers.
September’s decision therefore preserves an existing restraint on the government’s conduct while the litigation continues. It is not a final judgment resolving every possible IRS disclosure or every affected taxpayer’s claim.
Why the IRS–ICE court decisions can sound contradictory
Headlines about a court allowing data sharing and another court blocking it can both describe real decisions. They may concern different cases, different conduct, or different stages of the process.
| Decision | Question before the court | What readers should take from it |
|---|---|---|
| February 24, 2026 — Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent, No. 25-5181 | Whether to block the IRS–DHS memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the claims presented | The D.C. Circuit affirmed denial of preliminary relief. It concluded that address disclosures can be lawful when the statutory requirements are met; it did not decide the legality of the later implementation challenged in the other case. |
| September 8, 2026 — Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS, No. 26-5006 | Whether the IRS’s implemented sharing procedure complied with the law | The D.C. Circuit upheld preliminary restrictions after examining defects in the actual process. September did not reverse February. |
| February 5, 2026 — Community Economic Development Center of Southeastern Massachusetts v. Bessent, No. 1:25-cv-12822-IT | Whether the challenged arrangements and use of information obtained under them should be restrained | A separate Massachusetts order restricts the arrangements and bars DHS/ICE from using covered IRS information already received. This is especially relevant to people worried about past transfers. |
The April 7, 2025 memorandum of understanding established a process for requests concerning addresses of people under specified criminal investigation. An interagency agreement cannot expand the disclosure authority Congress provided. Equally, a court’s conclusion that an agreement can operate lawfully does not establish that every request or transfer made under it was lawful.
HLG’s March 2025 reporting on the proposed IRS–ICE deal provides historical context, not current legal guidance. The court records linked above address the later developments.
Can the IRS legally give ICE an address or tax return?
Federal law generally protects tax returns and return information, but it contains specific disclosure exceptions. The exception central to these cases, 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(2), permits certain information to be disclosed for qualifying federal non-tax criminal investigations or proceedings. A general interest in finding someone for civil immigration enforcement does not, by itself, satisfy that provision.
Federal tax confidentiality is not limited to undocumented immigrants or people who file using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). Section 6103 protects returns and return information generally, subject to statutory disclosure exceptions.
A valid request must come from an authorized official, be in writing, identify the taxpayer’s name and address and relevant tax periods, identify the criminal statutory authority, and explain why the information may be relevant. Disclosure is limited to qualifying officers and employees personally and directly engaged in the matter, for that permitted use. The September case applies these requirements to the actual request process.
There is also a technical distinction between return information and taxpayer return information. The latter generally means information supplied by or on behalf of the taxpayer. For this particular exception, however, Congress excludes taxpayer identity—including a name, mailing address and identifying number—from that narrower category. Identity information remains confidential return information; the special classification does not make it public.
That is why it would be inaccurate to say that an address supplied on a tax return can never be disclosed. The February appellate opinion explains the identity-information exception and its conditions. It also explains that Section 6103(i)(2) does not itself require a judge’s order for every valid request. A different provision, Section 6103(i)(1), provides a court-order route for broader protected material under its own requirements.
None of this makes the MOU a general authorization to obtain everyone’s complete returns, income details, dependent information or financial history. The type of information, source, legal authority, purpose and applicable court restrictions all matter. The address-request litigation should not be described as unrestricted access to the IRS’s files.
Nor does an outstanding removal order automatically prove a federal crime. 8 U.S.C. § 1253, invoked in the agreement, has additional requirements, including willfulness for the failure-to-depart offense, and protections concerning proper efforts to obtain relief. A lawyer must examine the facts and procedural history rather than assume that a final order satisfies every criminal element.
What happens to information ICE already received?
Stopping a new transfer and restricting use of an earlier transfer are separate legal questions. The September opinion establishes that a substantial disclosure had already occurred; it does not establish that all copies were deleted or that every affected person has been notified.
The February 5 Massachusetts order addresses downstream use more directly. Its operative provisions prohibit DHS/ICE and covered agents from inspecting, viewing, using, copying, distributing, relying on, or otherwise acting on return information obtained under the challenged arrangements, including the August 7, 2025 transfer. A restriction on use is consequential even when information has already left the IRS.
That order is part of separate litigation. An August 24, 2026 order records the appeal, No. 26-1329, and addresses completion of the Social Security Administration’s administrative record. It does not lift the IRS–ICE restrictions. The existence and terms of an injunction should still be distinguished from proof of the government’s compliance in an individual case.
HLG analysis: An immigration assessment should track the source and use of information, not assume that an address becomes unusable for every purpose simply because the IRS also possesses it. Whether ICE learned the address from a covered IRS transfer, an immigration file or an independent source may affect the legal analysis. This is one reason a data-sharing ruling does not automatically cancel a removal order or resolve an immigration case.
For an individual matter, Herman Legal Group’s recommended review separates four questions:
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What legal authority supported the request? | An agreement or an enforcement objective does not replace the requirements of the applicable statute. |
| What was actually disclosed, and to whom? | The legality of the implemented transfer may differ from what the written agreement contemplated. |
| How was the information used? | Restrictions on receipt, inspection, further sharing and enforcement use must be evaluated separately. |
| What immigration exposure exists independently? | A privacy claim may coexist with a removal order, pending proceeding or other issue requiring its own response. |
These are analytical questions, not a finding that any particular reader was targeted through IRS records.
Should immigrants continue filing required tax returns?
The IRS–ICE litigation does not eliminate tax obligations. The IRS states that undocumented workers remain subject to U.S. taxes. Whether a particular return is required depends on tax rules and the person’s circumstances; immigration status alone does not answer that question.
Tax residency also differs from immigration status. The IRS explains that an undocumented person who meets the substantial-presence test can be a U.S. resident for tax purposes, subject to the applicable rules and exceptions. Calling someone a resident on a tax return does not, by itself, establish that the person has a green card.
An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN, serves a federal tax purpose. It does not grant lawful immigration status or employment authorization. Filing accurate returns is not an application for immigration protection, and the privacy litigation should not be used as a reason to submit false information, destroy records or ignore a filing obligation.
If your tax and immigration histories do not match, obtain coordinated advice promptly. A qualified tax professional can assess filing, correction and payment issues; an immigration lawyer can assess how the underlying facts affect immigration eligibility or enforcement exposure. If criminal conduct may be implicated, the review may also require criminal-defense counsel. The appropriate response depends on what actually happened, not simply on whether an ITIN appears in the file.
Practical examples
The following are hypothetical illustrations, not HLG client cases or predictions of an outcome.
An ITIN filer with no known removal order. A person has filed taxes for several years and now fears that the IRS routinely sends every ITIN return to ICE. The court records do not establish that proposition. The useful next step is to assess the person’s actual immigration history and tax obligations, while recognizing that the opinion cannot confirm whether that individual’s records were disclosed.
A person with an old removal order and an upcoming ICE appointment. That person should not treat the September decision as cancellation of the appointment, a stay of removal or permission to disregard an existing obligation. Counsel should examine the order, subsequent proceedings and any available protection. A possible tax-data issue can be assessed alongside that work through removal and deportation defense.
A person whose employment and tax records use different identifying information. The significance depends on the documents, what was represented, to whom, and the relevant law. An ITIN alone is not proof of identity fraud, and a discrepancy alone does not establish every element of an offense. Before making new representations or corrections, obtain coordinated advice about accurate compliance and any potential immigration or criminal consequences.
Questions the headlines leave unanswered
Will I receive advance notice if ICE requests my information?
The November 21, 2025 order in Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS requires notice to the court and the plaintiffs in that case. Those requirements do not create an individual taxpayer warning or opt-out system. The order also excludes taxpayers’ names and addresses from the required notices. Lack of a personal notice therefore does not establish that your records were never requested or disclosed.
Does having an ITIN prove that someone is undocumented?
No. The IRS’s Form W-7 instructions describe several categories of eligible applicants who need a tax identification number but are not eligible for a Social Security number, including certain nonresident students, researchers, spouses and dependents. An ITIN is not a reliable substitute for examining immigration documents and history.
Can the published decisions tell me whether my information was shared?
Published court decisions report aggregate disclosures; they do not establish whether the IRS disclosed your records. An immigration lawyer can evaluate the available records and whether additional legal help is needed to seek information about a possible disclosure or its use.
When to speak with Herman Legal Group
A consultation is particularly useful when the concern involves a final removal order, ICE contact, a pending immigration filing or a material inconsistency in identity or tax records. Bring the relevant immigration notices, court orders, prior applications, tax records and identifying-number notices so the discussion can address the facts rather than rely on a general headline.
Herman Legal Group, founded by Richard T. Herman, Esq., provides immigration representation, including removal and deportation defense. An immigration consultation can help identify what requires immediate attention, what additional records are needed and whether separate tax or criminal-law advice is appropriate.
Book a Confidential Consultation or call 216-696-6170.
This article provides general information. The effect of a court order and the options in an individual immigration matter depend on the facts and subsequent legal developments.
